Re: [Talk-us] Thoughts on a standard "ref" abbreviation for PA Turnpike?
I didn't mean put network=* on the way; I meant the route relation. I presume that's already how it differentiates Interstates, US routes, state routes, etc. I don't know how else it could be done from the relation. I certainly agree now with adding PATP as a ref on the ways for the reasons you've described. On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 7:54 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > An aside (off list for reasons that will become obvious): > > It's unlikely that OSM-Carto will ever support the shaped shields and > relation-driven support for route concurrencies that I'm doing. The support > requires changes pretty much all up and down the rendering toolchain, and > the development teams for several of the tools (most notably osm2pgsql) > have pretty much conclusively rejected the changes that I proposed to > implement. Without them, it's pretty much impossible to provide proper > support for concurrency among route relations. > > Essentially, I'm foiled at every step because the dev teams don't agree > with my approach. For instance, the osm2pgsql team rejects any inclusion of > relations (rather than constructing ways from the relations) in the > rendering database. They predict various performance and maintainability > problems that warrant rejecting the changes out of hand, even if they > provide functionality that cannot be done otherwise. (Actually, pnorman > believes that it *can* be done - but has yet to offer a coherent path to > *how* to do it in a way that he'd accept - and I've not been able to find > one.) > > At one point, the openstreetmap.us team was accepting of Phil! Gold's > rendering of shielded ways and concurrent routes, which has several issues > that I've fixed (requiring a read/write connection to the PostGIS database, > and access as well to the native file system underlying it). I have hopes > that if I can refine this system enough, I might convince someone to accept > this as a national map, even though the main opensteetmap.org server will > never have it. > > I've got things to where I can run with an unpatched mapnik, and I'm > looking at pulling a switch at some point from osm2pgsql to imposm3. Once > I'm to that point, I can start looking at integrating a tile cache and > incremental updates. But my development time at this point is limited. Life > keeps getting in the way. For instance, at the moment, I'm recovering from > retinal surgery, and have a lot to catch up on once I'm back to full > function, so OSM will be on hold for a while longer. > > > -- —Albert Pundt ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Thoughts on a standard "ref" abbreviation for PA Turnpike?
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:34 PM Albert Pundt wrote: > On an unrelated note, thanks for linking that renderer. I used it to find > and fix some holes in PA's US 119 relation where it defaulted to using a > plain text rectangle since only the ref tag was present. > It may be a while before your changes show up. I reroll the tiles only sporadically. The shaped shields are used only for route=road relations. Putting network and ref on the way won't get them. (The plain text rectangles are used as a fallback for routes that have ref=* but are not members of route relations, or for networks that the code doesn't recognize.) Even though there are no reassurance markers, I think that map users would expect to see the Pike labeled as such, with the shield in place. The markers at entry and exit are prominent, and it's pretty obvious when you're entering and leaving since your go through a toll station. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Thoughts on a standard "ref" abbreviation for PA Turnpike?
This would not involve adding ref=PATP to the PA Turnpike route relation. However, thinking about it now, I think it should be added to the ways for the sake of the Carto renderer. (I know, I know, tagging for the renderer, but isn't Carto's use of ref tags for route markers the only reason the tags remain on ways?) We'd need to be careful where we use PATP in destination:ref tags, since the Turnpike shield is very rarely used once on the Turnpike. For example, the ramps from the mainline Turnpike (I-276) to the northbound Northeast Extension (I-476) should remain tagged as destination:ref=I 476 and not destination:ref=I 476;PATP since that shield does not appear on the signs. The only such use of a Turnpike shield that I know of is the aforementioned example eastbound at Willow Grove. "PA Turnpike XX" routes are an established type in Pennsylvania. Three examples currently exist: 66 (New Stanton to Delmont), 43 (WV to Fairchance and Uniontown to Jefferson Hills), and 576 (entire length, US 22 to Pgh Int'l Airport). A relation tagged with network=US:PA:Turnpike and a numerical ref value should trigger the use of the PA Turnpike XX shield. This isn't simply a fancy label for a standard state route like the yellow TOLL banners on I-376. They are treated as separate routes by PennDOT and the PTC. Exiting US 22 near Delmont, signs say "PA 66 South, TO PA Turnpike 66." Occasionally, an erroneous PA Turnpike XX shield pops up for I-76, 276, or 476, but that's inaccurate. Also, the oldest part of PA 43 and the tolled part of I-376 (once PA 60) were in the past signed with a white keystone simply saying "TOLL" at the top, but there are no remaining routes signed this way. On an unrelated note, thanks for linking that renderer. I used it to find and fix some holes in PA's US 119 relation where it defaulted to using a plain text rectangle since only the ref tag was present. I'll start adding PATP to destination:ref tags now, but will only retag the mainline ways if no one else has any objections. On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The Turnpike already has a series of relations, which renderers that are > aware of concurrent road routes are able to render. > > It's network=US:PA:Turnpike, and the relation has no ref=* since the road > markings are unique. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3075582 > > It appears to render correctly on > https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=40.1101=-75.3106=11 > which shows the Pike overlaid on Interstates 76, 276 and 476. > > I'd have no objection to putting ref=PATP on either the relation or the > ways, but please let me know if you plan to change the network since my > code needs to be aware of that. > > You might also want to consider what to do about the unusually signed > PA-Turnpike-66 from New Stanton to Belmont. > https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=40.2748=-79.6186=11 > shows what I'm doing with it at the moment. I'd need to check to see > whether I put in an override or whether the network tag is different. PA 43 > from Jefferson Hills to Uniontowm > https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=40.1043=-79.9194=11 > is another one that has Turnpike-overlaid-on-state-highway. > > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:52 PM Albert Pundt wrote: > >> Does anyone object to the use of "PATP" as the ref equivalent for the PA >> Turnpike? Particularly for destination:ref tags, as the Turnpike >> keystone shield is used on most guide signs for ramps onto the Turnpike. >> However, since it's not used as a reassurance marker*, I don't think it >> should be added as a ref tag on the ways (i.e. ref=I 76;PATP) as is done >> on the New Jersey Turnpike, which does have its shield on pull-through >> signs and similar. >> >> This sort of abbreviation is already standard practice in New Jersey (for >> the NJTP, GSP, and ACE) and New York (all the parkways), which have >> standard shields used on guide signs. >> >> This would apply to the mainline (I-76 and I-276) and the Northeast >> Extension (I-476), but not the newer four extensions (PA Tpke 43, 66, 576, >> and I-376). >> >> *There is now one set of signs eastbound on the mainline PA Turnpike >> approaching the Willow Grove (PA 611) interchange that has the PA Turnpike >> shield on the pull-through side. However, this was put up within the past >> two months and is not nearly common enough to base system-wide practice on. >> >> —Albert Pundt >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > -- —Albert Pundt ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Thoughts on a standard "ref" abbreviation for PA Turnpike?
Sounds good to me - I think the PATP abbreviation is easy to understand. Thanks, Bryan Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 10, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > > Does anyone object to the use of "PATP" as the ref equivalent for the PA > Turnpike? Particularly for destination:ref tags, as the Turnpike keystone > shield is used on most guide signs for ramps onto the Turnpike. However, > since it's not used as a reassurance marker*, I don't think it should be > added as a ref tag on the ways (i.e. ref=I 76;PATP) as is done on the New > Jersey Turnpike, which does have its shield on pull-through signs and similar. > > This sort of abbreviation is already standard practice in New Jersey (for the > NJTP, GSP, and ACE) and New York (all the parkways), which have standard > shields used on guide signs. > > This would apply to the mainline (I-76 and I-276) and the Northeast Extension > (I-476), but not the newer four extensions (PA Tpke 43, 66, 576, and I-376). > > *There is now one set of signs eastbound on the mainline PA Turnpike > approaching the Willow Grove (PA 611) interchange that has the PA Turnpike > shield on the pull-through side. However, this was put up within the past two > months and is not nearly common enough to base system-wide practice on. > > —Albert Pundt > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #433 2018-10-30-2018-11-05
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 433, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/10913/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
